ArticleiScience2024
Stereo-anomaly is found more frequently in tasks that require discrimination between depths.
Article in iScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breaking and restoring ocular balance: Temporal interactions in binocular rivalry and stereopsis.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Ocular Dominance Plasticity: A Mini-Review.Eye and brain · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Within the population of humans with otherwise normal vision, there exists some proportion whose ability to perceive depth from binocular disparity is poor or absent. The prevalence of this "stereo-anomaly" has been reported to be as small as 2%, or as great as 30%. We set out to investigate this discrepancy. We used a digital tool to measure stereoacuity in tasks requiring either the detection of disparity or the discrimination of the direction of disparity. In a cohort of 228 participants, we found that 98% were able to consistently perform the detection task. Of these, only 69% consistently performed the discrimination task. The 31% of participants who had difficulty with the discrimination task could further be divided into 17% who were consistently unable to perform the task and 14% who showed limited ability. This suggests that identification of the direction of disparity requires further processing beyond merely detecting its presence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.